Wtf? That’s such a casual suggestion to dismantle democracy. Yeah let’s do that so we never get a progressive in office /s

Californians are in an abusive relationship. Blamed for everything and not allowed to leave

I have no idea how the doj thinks this could work. Do they understand what chromium is and how chrome funds it? Also isn’t Google in trouble for paying Apple to be the default search engine? What exactly do they think chrome would sell? It’s own browser native ads??? User data? I don’t like any of the alternatives here

Guy defends the pedo that got him his job. What’s new with the Republican party?

Was Gaetz 18? Also no one cares what you did, if you fucked a child it wouldn’t make it right. What a weird argument

Laws only matter where there’s a will and power to enforce them. This supreme court has made it clear the president can break laws if its an “official” order. I don’t think it’s likely but it’s absolutely possible. Europe didn’t see WW2 coming and plenty of Jews were German citizens. None of this is even unprecedented

If you enjoy it I highly recommend the space exploration mod. Its even better imo

The Haitians were here legally and he campaigned on kicking them out. And if you think the supreme court is about to defend any monitory’s rights you haven’t been paying attention. He’s gone on record saying it’s okay if they screw up a few times deporting people

Sounds like “hey look over there” is exactly what you fell for

Not so fast. Remember the Nikki Haley mix up?

Mine would be embarrassed

Why talk down to someone with a valid point calling them a sweet child and then complain you’re not an expert, I don’t get what your stance is here

You can’t just be a good cryptographer to break a sound encryption. It doesn’t work that way. You’re basically saying you know p=np which is… I’ll just say bold

lazy automatically means black folk ain’t shit

Wtf are you on about?

Tell that to chromium

No I don’t think you could take a picture of your ballet in the 19th century when it was ruled illegal. So if it was illegal when the exchange was entirely faith based, how are reasoning pictures changes anything? That’s not why the law was created and this exchange can absolutely be considered vote buying

By this logic it’s historically impossible to buy votes since you can’t go into the polling location with them. Buying a view is an agreement about what a person has agreed to vote for. Musk has made a very clear offer to give money for someone who agrees to support the first amendment and that a vote for Trump is supporting the the first amendment. If the person doesn’t vote for Trump, by Musk’s stated beliefs, they are not supporting the first amendment and therefore disqualified from receiving the money. He is attempting to buy votes.

Still, again, my point is regarding what is implied in this article which is that Musk is paying people to vote for Trump. You do agree that this is not the case, correct?

No. Musk goes to a rally and says vote for Trump to preserve your first amendment rights then offers money to people pledging to support first amendment rights. Stop playing dumb

Musk did go to a Trump rally and say specifically voting for Trump is to preserve your first amendment rights and then offered to pay for people to vote to protect their first amendment rights. That seems legally questionable to me.

Also why shouldn’t things like this be brought up again? It should be brought up as long as he’s on the bench or the party that got him there still has any authority